Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Status
The status of claims 1-20 are:
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/30/2022 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) are:
“first detector” in claims 1-2 and 14-14
“second detector” in claims 1, 3-5, 14, and 16-18
“third detector” in claims 1, 3, 5, 14, 16, and 18
“information acquisition component” in claims 1, 5, 14, and 18
“image acquisition component” in claims 2 and 15
“image analyzing component” in claims 2 and 15
“reading component” in claims 4 and 17
“generating component” in claims 6 and 19.
Because these claim limitation(s) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
35 U.S.C. 101 requires that a claimed invention must fall within one of the four eligible categories of invention (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) and must not be directed to subject matter encompassing a judicially recognized exception as interpreted by the courts. MPEP 2106. Three categories of subject matter are found to be judicially recognized exceptions to 35 U.S.C. § 101 (i.e. patent ineligible) (1) laws of nature, (2) physical phenomena, and (3) abstract ideas. MPEP 2106(II). To be patent-eligible, a claim directed to a judicial exception must as whole be integrated into a practical application or directed to significantly more than the exception itself (MPEP 2106). Hence, the claim must describe a process or product that applies the exception in a meaningful way, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. In the analysis below, the device of independent claim 1 is considered representative of independent claims 8 and 14. Each of the independent claims 1, 8, and 14 are directed to one of the four statutory categories of eligible subject matter; thus, the claims pass Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test (See flowchart in MPEP 2106).
Step 2A, Prong 1 Analysis
Independent claims 1, 8, and 14 are directed to detecting that work was executed in a work area; detecting that the work in the work area ended; detecting that a hand of an operator entered an article area where an article relating to the work is placed; and acquiring information relating to the work in the work area if, from when the hand of the operator entered the article area is detected until the work in the work area ended is detected, then the work was executed in the work area is detected. An individual can detect that work was executed in a work area, detect that the work has ended, and detect that a hand of an operator entered an article area where an article relating to the work is placed, and acquire information relating to the work in the work area if, from when the hand of the operator entered the article area until the work in the work area ended, then the work executed in the work area is detected. Accordingly, the analysis under prong one of Step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test does not result in a conclusion of eligibility (See flowchart in MPEP 2106).
Additional elements
Independent claim 1 claims an work management device comprising: a first detector; a second detector; a third detector; and an information acquisition component. Independent claim 8 has no additional elements. Independent claim 14 claims a work management system, comprising: a first detector; a second detector; a third detector; and an information acquisition component.
Step 2A, Prong 2 Analysis
The above-identified elements do not integrate the judicial into a practical application nor do they suggest an improvement.
The additional elements of a device or system comprising a first detector; a second detector; a third detector; and an information acquisition component amounts to merely using generic computer hardware or components as a tool to perform the claimed mental process. Using a general purpose computer to apply a judicial exception does not qualify as a particular machine and therefore, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (See MPEP 2106.05(b)). Furthermore, implementing an abstract idea on a computer does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Moreover, the additional elements of the claims do not recite an improvement in the functioning of a computer or another technology or technical field, the claimed steps do not effect a transformation, and the claims do not apply the judicial exception in any meaningful way beyond generically linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (See MPEP 2106.04(d)). Therefore, the analysis under prong two of step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test does not result in a conclusion of eligibility (See flowchart in MPEP 2106).
Step 2B
Finally, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding independent claims 1, 8, and 14, as noted above, the additional elements are generic computer features which perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional and do not amount to more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea).
Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves and other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation, and mere implementation on a generic computer does not add significantly more to the claims. Accordingly, the analysis under step 2B of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test does not result in a conclusion of eligibility (See flowchart in MPEP 2106).
Simply automating a mental process that can be performed manually by a person by using a computer or neural network is, by itself, not patent eligible. The fact that the computer or neural network can perform the process faster or more accurately is not enough for the process to be considered integrated into a practical application or for it to be considered to amount to significantly more than the process itself.
For all the foregoing reasons, independent claims 1 and 14-15 do not recite eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Claims 2, 9, and 15 recite acquiring a captured image from a camera that images the work area; detecting a position of the hand of the operator from the captured image; and if the hand of the operator detected is located in the work area for a predetermined time or longer, detecting that the work was executed in the work area. The features of claims 2, 9, and 15 are directed to the mental process since they do not preclude a person from performing the analysis as recited in claims 1, 8, and 14. Accordingly, claims 2, 9, and 15 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 3, 10, and 16 recite if, after detecting that the hand of the operator entered a first article area, detecting that the hand of the operator entered another second article area; and detecting that work relating to an article placed in the first article area in the work area ended. The features of claims 3, 10, and 16 are directed to the mental process since they do not preclude a person from performing the analysis as recited in claims 1, 8, and 14. Accordingly, claims 3, 10, and 16 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 4, 11, and 17 recite reading medium information; and detecting, based on a reading result of the medium information, that the work in the work area ended. The features of claims 4, 11, and 17 are directed to the mental process since they do not preclude a person from performing the analysis as recited in claims 1, 8, and 14. Accordingly, claims 4, 11, and 17 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 5, 12, and 18 recite acquiring, as a work time in the work area, an elapsed time from a first point in time when detecting that the hand of the operator entered the article area until a second point in time when detecting that the work in the work area ended. The features of claims 5, 12, and 18 are directed to the mental process since they do not preclude a person from performing the analysis as recited in claims 1, 8, and 14. Accordingly, claims 5, 12, and 18 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 6, 13, and 19 recite generating work log data from at least one of an operator code, an operator name of an operator data area, a work code, and a work name of the work area, a work start time, a work end time, and a work time. The features of claims 6, 13, and 19 are directed to the mental process since they do not preclude a person from performing the analysis as recited in claims 1, 8, and 14. Accordingly, claims 6, 13, and 19 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 7 and 20 recite wherein the work code is a unique identification code set for each process in order to individually identify processes. The features of claims 7 and 20 are directed to the mental process since they do not preclude a person from performing the analysis as recited in claims 1 and 14. Accordingly, claims 7 and 20 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-11, 13-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kudo (JP 2017234401 A using the translation provided herein, hereinafter “Kudo”).
Translated fig. 8 of Kudo is provided below for reference in the following rejections
PNG
media_image1.png
706
436
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Kudo discloses a work management apparatus, comprising:
a first detector configured to detect that work was executed in a work area (Kudo Page 3: “The analysis unit 502 also determines that the assembly operation has been correctly performed if the worker's hand moves in the order of the set operation area”);
a second detector configured to detect that the work in the work area ended (Kudo Page 3: “Also, one assembly operation described in the process definition is called a cycle. In this example, it is one cycle from the start of the work 0 to the end of the work 1 and the carrying out of the object after the object is set”; Kudo Page 9: “After that, the analysis unit 502 determines whether the cycle is completed”);
a third detector configured to detect that a hand of an operator entered an article area where an article relating to the work is placed (Kudo Page 3: “In the first embodiment, it is determined whether or not the hand of the worker has moved to the operation area, but not limited to the hand of the worker, the foot, the knee, etc. of the worker can be arbitrarily selected in the worker's body A part of can be used to determine if the assembly operation has been correctly performed”); and
and an information acquisition component configured to acquire information relating to the work in the work area (Kudo Fig. 8: S810; Kudo Page 10: “Thereafter, the analysis unit 502 outputs the analysis result (S810). In this output, the operation detection result is output. The output method is not particularly limited, and any method such as displaying on the monitor 110 or sending an email to a worker or a supervisor of a work can be used”) if, from when the third detector detects that the hand of the operator entered the article area until when the second detector detects that the work in the work area ended (Kudo Fig. 8: S804; Kudo Page 9: “The analysis unit 502 executes S802 again if it is determined not to be stationary (S803: N), and performs hand detection from the frame image if it is determined to be still (S803: Y) (S804)”; Kudo Fig. 8: S808; Kudo Page 9: “When it is determined that the cycle is ended (S 808: Y), the analysis unit 502 performs sequence matching processing on the detected operation sequence (S 809), and performs work execution determination from the result”), the first detector detects that the work was executed in the work area (Kudo Fig. 8: S806; Kudo Page 3: “In each frame image of the captured video, it is detected where the operator's hand is and motion is detected along the work flow”).
Regarding claim 8, it is rejected under the same analysis as claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 14, it is rejected under the same analysis as claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 2, Kudo discloses the apparatus, further comprising:
an image acquisition component configured to acquire a captured image from a camera that images the work area (Kudo Page 2: “The camera 112 is an imaging device of a video such as a monitoring camera, and is connected to the information processing apparatus 100 via the network line 111. The operation of the camera 112 is controlled by the CPU 101 via the communication interface 107, and the camera 112 is provided at a position where it can look over the inside of the work area, and photographs the worker 28 and the entire work area”); and
an image analyzing component configured to detect a position of the hand of the operator from the captured image (Kudo Page 4: “The detected moving body is determined as an object such as a human body or a driver by image processing or the like. In the first embodiment, the analysis unit 502 detects the hand area by removing the head, arms, and the like of the worker from the moving body determined as a human body by image recognition processing”), wherein
if the hand of the operator detected by the image analyzing component is located in the work area for a predetermined time or longer, the first detector detects that the work was executed in the work area (Kudo Fig. 8: S806; Kudo Page 3: “The analysis unit 502 also determines that the assembly operation has been correctly performed if the worker's hand moves in the order of the set operation area. In the first embodiment, it is determined whether or not the hand of the worker has moved to the operation area”).
Regarding claim 9, it is rejected under the same analysis as claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 15, it is rejected under the same analysis as claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 3, Kudo discloses the apparatus, wherein
the article area is divided into a plurality of article areas (Kudo Page 6: “As an example, when the hand area overlaps the operation area in the order of the operation area 1, the operation area 2, the operation area 4, the operation area 3, and the operation area 4”; Kudo Fig. 2: dashed boxes are different article areas), and
if, after detecting that the hand of the operator entered a first article area, the third detector detects that the hand of the operator entered another second article area (Kudo Page 3: “In the first embodiment, the analysis unit 502 compares an image of the worker's right hand area or left hand area with the operation area, and detects an operation from the comparison result”), the second detector detects that work relating to an article placed in the first article area in the work area ended (Kudo Fig. 8: S806; Kudo Page 3: “The analysis unit 502 also determines that the assembly operation has been correctly performed if the worker's hand moves in the order of the set operation area. In the first embodiment, it is determined whether or not the hand of the worker has moved to the operation area”).
Regarding claim 10, it is rejected under the same analysis as claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 16, it is rejected under the same analysis as claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 4, Kudo discloses the apparatus, further comprising a reading component configured to read medium information (Kudo Page 2: “In FIG. 1A, a central processing unit (CPU) 101 of the information processing apparatus 100 controls processing of the entire information processing apparatus 100. A ROM (Read Only Memory) 102 is a read only recording device that stores programs and parameters that do not need to be changed. A random access memory (RAM) 103 is a rewritable storage device that temporarily stores programs and data supplied from an external device or the like. The external storage device 104 is a rewritable storage device such as a hard disk or a memory card fixedly installed in the information processing apparatus 100. The external storage device 104 may be an optical disk such as a flexible disk (FD) or a CD (Compact Disk) that can be attached to or detached from the information processing apparatus 100, a magnetic card, an optical card, an IC card, a memory card, or the like”), wherein
the second detector detects based on a reading result of the medium information by the reading component that the work in the work area ended (Kudo Page 9: “Specifically, the detection condition is determined using the "workbench" template from the template management table of FIG. That is, it is determined that the work on the object is completed and the object has been moved from the workbench”).
Regarding claim 11, it is rejected under the same analysis as claim 4 above.
Regarding claim 17, it is rejected under the same analysis as claim 4 above.
Regarding claim 6, Kudo discloses an apparatus, further comprising a generating component configured to generate work log data from at least one of an operator code, an operator name of an operator data area, a work code (Kudo Page 8: “The control unit 500 causes the output unit 505 to output the analysis result by the analysis unit 502 to the display 59. If there is no problem in the assembling operation, nothing is output from the output unit 505, and if there is a problem (for example, there is an operation that has not been performed), the output unit 505 outputs that effect. Specifically, together with the assembly work start time and end time of the cycle, the operation name not executed is output”, shows that the apparatus logs a work code/operation name) and a work name of the work area, a work start time, a work end time, and a work time (Kudo Page 8: “The control unit 500 causes the output unit 505 to output the analysis result by the analysis unit 502 to the display 59. If there is no problem in the assembling operation, nothing is output from the output unit 505, and if there is a problem (for example, there is an operation that has not been performed), the output unit 505 outputs that effect. Specifically, together with the assembly work start time and end time of the cycle, the operation name not executed is output”, shows that the apparatus logs a start time and end time).
Regarding claim 13, it is rejected under the same analysis as claim 6 above.
Regarding claim 19, it is rejected under the same analysis as claim 6 above.
Regarding claim 7, Kudo discloses the apparatus, wherein the work code is a unique identification code set for each process in order to individually identify processes of assembly work carried out in the work area (Kudo Page 8: “The control unit 500 causes the output unit 505 to output the analysis result by the analysis unit 502 to the display 59. If there is no problem in the assembling operation, nothing is output from the output unit 505, and if there is a problem (for example, there is an operation that has not been performed), the output unit 505 outputs that effect. Specifically, together with the assembly work start time and end time of the cycle, the operation name not executed is output”, shows that the apparatus logs a work code/operation name).
Regarding claim 20, it is rejected under the same analysis as claim 7 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 5, 12, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kudo in view of Fujimoto (U.S. Patent Publication No 2022/0230440, hereinafter “Fujimoto”).
Regarding claim 5, Kudo does not explicitly disclose the apparatus, wherein the information acquisition component acquires, as a work time in the work area, an elapsed time from a first point in time when the third detector detects that the hand of the operator entered the article area until a second point in time when the second detector detects that the work in the work area ended.
However, Fujimoto teaches the apparatus, wherein the information acquisition component acquires, as a work time in the work area, an elapsed time from a first point in time when the third detector detects that the hand of the operator entered the article area until a second point in time when the second detector detects that the work in the work area ended (Fujimoto [0051]: “In the above description, the operation start time Tms is a time point at which the apparatus 40 used for the work process Pr starts execution of the operation Ac when the work process Pr is executed, and the operation completion time Tme is a time point at which the execution of the operation Ac is completed. The operation period Da is a period from the operation start time Tms to the operation completion time Tme”).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate acquiring a work time as taught by Fujimoto with the apparatus of Kudo because it would improve the apparatus by giving it more data to analyze for example, allowing the apparatus to determine if a worker is completing a task in a timely manner. This motivation for the combination of Kudo and Fujimoto is supported by KSR exemplary rationale (D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. MPEP 2141 (III).
Regarding claim 12, it is rejected under the same analysis claim 5 above.
Regarding claim 18, it is rejected under the same analysis as claim 5 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Takeno (U.S. Patent Publication No 2021/0295040) discloses an image processing device to capture video of a worker in a work area and determine if the worker has performed a task properly (Takeno Abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AIDAN KEUP whose telephone number is (703)756-4578. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00-4:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Emily Terrell can be reached at (571) 270-3717. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AIDAN KEUP/ Examiner, Art Unit 2666 /Molly Wilburn/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2666